Extra or Missing Letters

• These exceptional forms usually occur in poetic passages and are considered by many to simply be an aesthetic form, "לתפארת הקריאה" or "לצחות הלשון". 
• See, though, HaKetav VeHakabbalah¹ on Shemot 15:6 who asserts that the form often conveys that the action or description mentioned is a continual one.

Below are many examples where commentators note an apparently unnecessary "י".  These are followed by examples where there is dispute, and some suggest that the final "י" is necessary.

• "גְּנֻבְתִי יוֹם וּגְנֻבְתִי לָיְלָה" (Bereshit 31:39)
• "אֹסְרִי לַגֶּפֶן עִירֹה"  (Bereshit 49:11)²
• "נֶאְדָּרִי בַּכֹּחַ" (Shemot 15:6)
• "שֹׁכְנִי סְנֶה" (Devarim 33:16)
• "וְהוּא יָרָה הַחֵצִי לְהַעֲבִרוֹ" (Shemuel I 20:36) - See Rid. Unlike most of the examples here which appear to be poetic forms, this is in a prose section.
• "מְלֵאֲתִי מִשְׁפָּט" (Yeshayahu 1:21)
• "חֹצְבִי מָרוֹם קִבְרוֹ חֹקְקִי בַסֶּלַע" (Yeshayahu 22:16)
• "שֹׁכְנִי בְּחַגְוֵי הַסֶּלַע תֹּפְשִׂי מְרוֹם גִּבְעָה" (Yirmeyahu 49:16)
• "אֹהַבְתִּי לָדוּשׁ" (Hoshea 10:11)
• "שֹׁכְנִי בְחַגְוֵי סֶלַע" (Ovadiah 1:3)
• "שֹׁכְנִי לְבָדָד" (Mikhah 7:14)
• "רֹעִי הָאֱלִיל עֹזְבִי הַצֹּאן" (Zekharyah 11:17)
• "מְלׇשְׁנִ֬י] (מלושני) בַסֵּ֨תֶר]" (Tehillim 101:5)
• "לְכׇל עֲוֺנֵכִי... לְכׇל תַּחֲלוּאָיְכִי.. חַיָּיְכִי הַמְעַטְּרֵכִי...נְעוּרָיְכִי" (Tehillim 103:3-5)
• "עַל דִּבְרָתִי מַלְכִּי צֶדֶק" (Tehillim 110:4)
• "הַמַּגְבִּיהִי לָשָׁבֶת... הַמַּשְׁפִּילִי לִרְאוֹת... מְקִימִי... לְהוֹשִׁיבִי... מוֹשִׁיבִי" (Tehillim 113:5-9)
• "הַהֹפְכִי הַצּוּר" (Tehillim 114:8)
• "שׁוּבִי נַפְשִׁי לִמְנוּחָיְכִי כִּי י״י גָּמַל עָלָיְכִי" (Tehillim 116:7)
• "בְּתוֹכֵכִי יְרוּשָׁלָ͏ִם" (Tehillim 116:19)
• "הַיֹּשְׁבִי בַּשָּׁמָיִם" (Tehillim 123:1)
• "בְּתוֹכֵכִי מִצְרָיִם" (Tehillim 135:9)
• "רַבָּתִי עָם...רַבָּתִי בַגּוֹיִם שָׂרָתִי בַּמְּדִינוֹת" (Eikhah 1:1)

Disputed examples:

• "בְּנִי אֲתֹנוֹ" (Bereshit 49:11) – Many assume that the word "בְּנִי" is a poetic form for "בן",  translating the phrase as: "his donkey's colt". Cf. R"Y Bekhor Shor that here the "י" is an integral part of the word, signifying possession (meaning: "my son"). Yaakov addresses Yehuda, the subject of the verbs in the verse, directly, saying to him: "My son will tether his foal to the vine, and his donkey to the bough."³
• "עׇזִּי וְזִמְרָת יָהּ" (Shemot 15:2, Yeshayahu 12:2, Tehillim 118:14) – See Rashi that the "י" is superfluous and that the word should be understood as if written "עז", a noun in the construct state. The verse would read: "The might of Hashem... was for me a salvation".  Cf. Ibn Ezra that the final "י" might instead be necessary, a sign of the first person possessive (my might). One would have then expected "עֻזִּי" rather than "עׇזִּי", but Ibn Ezra claims there is no difference between the two forms.
• "הַצְּבִי יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל בָּמוֹתֶיךָ חָלָל" (Shemuel II 1:9) – Though most assume that "צְּבִי" here is a noun meaning "beauty," see Ibn Ezra on Bereshit 49:11, that the "י" is extraneous.
• "קִרְיַת מְשׂוֹשִׂי" (Yirmeyahu 49:25) – Compare Rashi and Metzudat Zion.
• "מִלִּפְנֵי אָדוֹן חוּלִי אָרֶץ" (Tehillim 114:7) – According to Rashi and one opinion in Ibn Ezra, the "י" of the word "חולי" is superfluous, and the word means: "the one who bore (i.e. created)". Others disagree and suggest that the "י" is an indication of the feminine imperative, with the verse meaning: "Before the Master, tremble O' earth" (opinion in Ibn Ezra, Radak).
• "מַרְכְּבוֹת עַמִּי נָדִיב" (Shir HaShirim 6:12) – Most suggest that this is equivalent to "עם נדיב", but see the commentary attributed toRr"Y Kara that "עַמִּי נָדִיב" is the name of an artisan who made the chariots, with the phrase reading: "the chariots of Ami Nadiv".

• See Shadal Bereshit 1:24

• Examples
• חַיְתוֹ – Bereshit 1:24 (וְחַיְתוֹ אֶרֶץ), Zephanyah 2:14 (כׇּל חַיְתוֹ גוֹי )Tehillim 50:10 and 104:20 (חַיְתוֹ יָעַר), Yeshayahu 56:9 (חַיְתוֹ שָׂדָי)
• בְּנוֹ צִפֹּר (Bemidbar 23:18) and "בְּנוֹ בְעֹר" (Bemidbar 24:3)
• לְמַעְיְנוֹ מָיִם – Tehillim 114:8
• Disputed Cases:
• וְכִפֶּר אַדְמָתוֹ עַמּוֹ (Devarim 32:43)
• וְחׇלְיוֹ וָקָצֶף (Kohelet 5:16) – See Rashi and Ralbag. Cf. Hoil Moshe that the it is the "ו" of "וָקָצֶף" that is extraneous.

Normally when a ל"ה verb (a verb which has a "ה" in the third letter of the root) is conjugated, it loses the "ה". For example, the third person plural of the root "בכה", is "כסו", not "בכהו". Sometimes, though, the missing "ה" is replaced by a "י". [See Shadal on Shemot 15, and Ibn Ezra on Yeshayahu 41:5]

• "תְּהֹמֹת יְכַסְיֻמוּ" (Shemot 15:5)
• "וּבְקָרְךָ וְצֹאנְךָ יִרְבְּיֻן" (Devarim 8:13)
• "צוּר חָסָיוּ בוֹ" (Devarim 32:37)
• " יֶחֱרָדוּ קָרְבוּ וַיֶּאֱתָיוּן" Yeshayahu 41:5
• "יִרְוְיֻן מִדֶּשֶׁן בֵּיתֶךָ" (Tehillim 36:9)
• "וַאֲנִי כִּמְעַט [נָטָיוּ] (נטוי) רַגְלָי" (Tehillim 73:2) -
• "אֶזְכְּרָה אֱלֹהִים וְאֶהֱמָיָה" (Tehillim 77:4)
• "יִשְׁלָיוּ אֹהֲבָיִךְ" (Tehillim 122:6)

• Ibn Ezra notes that there is a similar phenomenon in Arabic, פ״ה רפה בלשון ישמעאל

• Bereshit 36:24 (וְאֵלֶּה בְנֵי צִבְעוֹן וְאַיָּה וַעֲנָה) – As Ayah is the first of the listed sons of Zivon, the conjunction "ו" before it seems unnecessary.  See Rashi that the "ו" is indeed superfluous, pointing to the parallel genealogy list in Divrei HaYamim I 1:40, where the name is written "איה". Cf. Rashbam who suggests that the son's name was actually "Ve'ayah", pointing to other names in Tanakh which similarly begin with a "ו", such as Vashti in the Scroll of Esther.
• Vayikra 7:16 (וּמִמׇּחֳרָת וְהַנּוֹתָר מִמֶּנּוּ יֵאָכֵל) – See Rashi and Ibn Ezra that the "ו" of "וְהַנּוֹתָר" here is superfluous, with the phrase meaning "and on the next day, whatever remains shall be eaten").  Cf. Ramban that the "ו" is meaningful, with the "and" serving to emphasize the word "נותר", that it only if something remains that it should be eaten on the morrow.  See also Hoil Moshe who raises the possibility that the "ו" should really be attached to the previous word, with the phrase reading, "וּמִמׇּחֳרָתו הַנּוֹתָר"
• Tehillim 76:7 ("מִגַּעֲרָתְךָ אֱלֹהֵי יַעֲקֹב נִרְדָּם וְרֶכֶב וָסוּס").  There seems to be no reason to include the word "and" before "רֶכֶב" as it is the first subject of the list, leading Rashi to suggest that it is redundant.  Cf. Ibn Ezra that the word "נִרְדָּם" refers back to the subject of the previous sentence as well, so that the verse should be understood as if written "The men of valor [mentioned in the previous verse] and the chariots and horses fell asleep".  Radak similarly introduces an assumed subject: "the king, and chariot and horses".
• וְקֹ֥דֶשׁ וְצָבָ֖א (Daniel 8:13) – See Rashi that the "ו" of "וְקֹ֥דֶשׁ" is superfluous.

• When words in a construct chain (סמיכות)⁵ are definite (marked by a "the", a ה' הידיעה), normally only the second noun of the word pair (the סומך) gets the definite article, e.g. "‏סֵפֶר הַמִּקְנָה".‎⁶  However, sometimes in Tanakh one finds what appears to be an extraneous definite article also on the first word of the pair (the נסמך), as, for example, in the phrase:."הַסֵּפֶר הַמִּקְנָה".
• In such cases, sometimes this initial noun appears in its absolute (usual) form,⁷  (e.g."הַנְּבוּאָה עֹדֵד הַנָּבִיא"),⁸ while elsewhere it appears in the construct state, with accompanying changes in spelling and vocalization (e.g. "הַמִּזְבַּח הַנְּחֹשֶׁת").⁹ Often, the construct and absolute states of a noun look identical so one cannot determine which form the initial word is taking.

• A missing "נסמך" – Ibn Ezra¹⁰ suggests that in these exceptional cases, the first noun of the apparent word pair is really not part of the construct chain at all but rather stands on its own.¹¹ The actual first noun of the word pair (the נסמך) is missing and must be supplied by the reader.¹²  Thus "הָעָם הַמִּלְחָמָה" (Yehoshua 8:11) should be read as if written, "הָעָם, עַם הַמִּלְחָמָה" and "וְהַנְּבוּאָה עֹדֵד הַנָּבִיא" (Divrei HaYamim II 15:8) is equivalent to: "וְהַנְּבוּאָה, נְבוּאַת עֹדֵד הַנָּבִיא".  This explanation works well for cases where the initial noun is found in its absolute form, but would not explain cases where it is in the construct state.¹³
• Doubled for emphasis – Radak offers a second explanation of the phenomenon in his Sefer Mikhlol (p.43), suggesting that both nouns of such word pairs are indeed part of the construct chain, and the doubling of the definite article on the first word (the נסמך)  is simply for emphasis.¹⁴  According to this explanation one would expect the initial noun to always be found in the construct state, making cases where it is absolute somewhat difficult.  This leads Radak to suggest that in the latter cases, perhaps one should explain that the "נסמך" is missing, as above.¹⁵
• Local explanations – There are several cases where commentators give local alternative explanations of the anomalous form.¹⁶

• Cases where the initial noun is in the absolute state:
• הָאָרוֹן הַבְּרִית (Yehoshua 3:14) – Compare Radak who writes, "חסר, ופירושו: הארון ארון הברית" with Malbim who suggests that the phrase means "the ark [which is itself] the covenant".
• הָעָם הַמִּלְחָמָה (Yehoshua 8:11)
• הַבָּקָר הַנְּחֹשֶׁת (Melakhim II 16:17)
• כּוֹס הַיַּיִן הַחֵמָה הַזֹּאת (Yirmeyahu 25:15)
• הָעָם הָאָרֶץ (Yechezkel 45:16)
• וְהַנְּבוּאָה עֹדֵד הַנָּבִיא (Divrei HaYamim II 15:8)
• Cases where the initial noun is in the construct state:
• אֶת הַיְתַד הָאֶרֶג (Shofetim 16:14)
• הַתּוֹעֲבֹת הַגּוֹיִם (Melakhim I 14:24)
• הַמִּזְבַּח הַנְּחֹשֶׁת (Melakhim II 16:14)
• הַמִּזְבַּח בֵּית אֵל (Melakhim II 23:17)
• כׇּל הַמַּמְלְכוֹת הָאָרֶץ (Yirmeyahu 25:26) – See Radak and Malbim.
• הַלִּשְׁכוֹת הַקֹּדֶשׁ (Yechezkel 46:19)
• Cases where the absolute and construct states of the initial noun are identical:
• וְעֵץ הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע (Bereshit 3:9)¹⁷
• הָאֵל בֵּית אֵל (Bereshit 31:13)
• שְׁתֵּי הָעֲבֹתֹת הַזָּהָב (Shemot 39:17)
• הַמֶּלֶךְ בָּבֶל (Melakhim II 25:11)
• הַסֵּפֶר הַמִּקְנָה (Yirmeyahu 32:12)
• הַלַּעַג הַשַּׁאֲנַנִּים (Tehillim 123:4) – Radak suggests that the phrase is either missing the נסמך and is short for "הַלַּעַג, לעג הַשַּׁאֲנַנִּים", or that the "ה" in the word "הַשַּׁאֲנַנִּים" stands in for a "ל", so that the phrase reads "the mockery [that we were] to the smug."
• הַזִּכְרֹנוֹת דִּבְרֵי הַיָּמִים (Esther 6:1)

• Devarim 32:36: כִּי אָזְלַת יָד = כ י אזלה יד (See R"Y Bekhor Shor and Ibn Ezra who notes, "כי גם שתיהן סימני הנקבה", but then suggests "ולפי דעתי: שתי״ו אזלתה לסמיכה")
• Yechezkel 46:17:  וְשָׁבַת לַנָּשִׂיא" = ושבה לנשיא"  (See Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Radak, Hoil Moshe²²)
• –

Normally when a ל"ה verb (a verb which has a "ה" in the third letter of the root) is conjugated, it loses the "ה". For example, the third person plural of the root "כסה", is "כסו", not  "כסהו". Sometimes, though, the missing "ה" is replaced by a "י". [See Shadal on Shemot 15, and Ibn Ezra on Yeshayahu 41:5]

• For examples, see the above section entitled, "Extra middle yud".